Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 14   Go Down

Author Topic: from the front page: adam krawesky  (Read 6070 times)

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 841
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #200 on: January 09, 2019, 02:54:44 pm »

As someone who has applied pigment to flat surfaces, placed words in quantity on to paper, and shaped materials into objects, I have to say that I find very little similarity between those activities and the gentle press of a button. But, perhaps you mean something more abstract, more general.

You seem to believe that making a print is just gently pressing a button.
Not my experience
Logged

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #201 on: January 09, 2019, 03:47:08 pm »

You can print things which are not photographs, and conversely a photograph need not be printed to be a photograph.

Printing, therefore, is not photography, any more than stretching canvas is painting.

ETA: You can, and people do, argue that "photography" justly applies to the whole process, the whole mesh of possible threads of activity, from set decorating and lighting, to direction, through the gentle press of the shutter button, onwards to potentially endless post-processing. And, in a sense, that's fine. Painting, you can equally well argue, does include stretching canvas, grinding pigments, varnishing, framing. Any individual painting might be done with or without doing some of those steps, just as one might take a picture and either clone out the power line -- or not.

Still, it begs the question "so what is the essential thing that makes a painting? or photograph?"

The answer to these questions are something fairly close to: applying colored goo to a surface, and gently pressing the button on a camera, respectively.

These are thing irreducible things that make a painting a painting, a photograph a photograph.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 04:03:02 pm by amolitor »
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12720
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #202 on: January 09, 2019, 04:01:14 pm »

As someone who has applied pigment to flat surfaces, placed words in quantity on to paper, and shaped materials into objects, I have to say that I find very little similarity between those activities and the gentle press of a button. But, perhaps you mean something more abstract, more general.

No, Andrew. It doesn't matter whether you're applying paint to a flat surface or shaping materials into objects or putting words on paper, or gently pressing a button. What matters is seeing -- in all these activities. You may be technically superb as a painter, sculptor, writer, photographer, but if you don't see, you're dead in the water.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. I had all of two seconds to make this picture -- with a camera. But if I'd simply seen it and then painted it or written about it or made a sculpture about it, the result would have been the same. The important thing was seeing it and responding.

Which, incidentally, is why real street photography is the highest and best use of a camera. With landscape and similar kinds of photography you pretty much have as long as you want to take to make the picture. With street you see it and snap it as a single thing: I'd call it a gestalt, but that would be pushing the word a bit too far. But you see it, snap it, and it's gone. It's gone forever.

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #203 on: January 09, 2019, 04:07:58 pm »

That is in fact my point, Russ.

Photography distills away (essentially) all of the activity, all motion, all the physical acts which make an object. Photography distills the job to simply seeing. The words I use to describe this are: photography is, essentially, an act of selection not of creation but you could as well say (nearly) pure seeing if you like.

And my underlying point is that it is that act of more or less pure seeing that, when successful, is the important thing, not the various physical motions that you can choose to do or not do. Which, I think, is more or less exactly what you just said?
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12720
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #204 on: January 09, 2019, 04:10:48 pm »

Looks as if we're on the same wavelength.

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1285
    • Robert's Photos
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #205 on: January 09, 2019, 04:32:49 pm »

After 11 pages of discussion (I haven't read every post), it might be awkward to argue that the article and the site in general aren't delivering the content that people want.
Logged
--
Robert robertroaldi.zenfolio.com

OmerV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 509
    • Photographs
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #206 on: January 09, 2019, 04:42:40 pm »

As someone who has applied pigment to flat surfaces, placed words in quantity on to paper, and shaped materials into objects, I have to say that I find very little similarity between those activities and the gentle press of a button. But, perhaps you mean something more abstract, more general.

The fact remains that there is a widely held idea that photography is qualitatively different from the painting, sculpture, writing, dance, musical composition, and so on. I am not alone in holding this, and many many millions  ???of words have been written on the subject which you are free to peruse. I understand it in a particular way which seems to a) be consistent with contemporary ideas surrounding Art and b) resonate with many people.

Well Andrew, we finally have something in common. I too painted, drew and have played a little music.

From my experience, itís all the same in effort. Work and perserverence. But Iím not sure what you mean by ďqualitatively different.Ē Of course there are differences. Photography can do what no other medium can, and vice versa. I mean, Iíve yet to see a photo that can get me dancing, and Iíve yet to read a poem that can levitate a small dog.

But what does that mean? Nothing unless being in the ďrightĒ clique is important, which in case being a friend of Ai Weiwei is better than befriending Alec Soth.

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #207 on: January 09, 2019, 04:57:33 pm »

That is in fact my point, Russ.

Photography distills away (essentially) all of the activity, all motion, all the physical acts which make an object. Photography distills the job to simply seeing. The words I use to describe this are: photography is, essentially, an act of selection not of creation but you could as well say (nearly) pure seeing if you like.

And my underlying point is that it is that act of more or less pure seeing that, when successful, is the important thing, not the various physical motions that you can choose to do or not do. Which, I think, is more or less exactly what you just said?

Your point is and was very clear.
I understand your point and can follow your discourse, itís not new to me. However in time I developed second thoughts about it. 


The one (cerebral, seeing) doesnít mean a thing without the other (the craft, the output). The latter is of no chance without the former. If you are not able to give output on what you see, it risks to be intellectual masturbation.

Following the spiral of arguments you land at conceptual art, Marcel Duchampís Fountain by R.Mutt or even further: the telephone instructions of Sol LeWitt.

Iím very open to this art, but I have to be fair and I Ďm more visual and auditory oriented. I need input from my senses to enjoy a piece of art.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 05:08:02 pm by Ivophoto »
Logged

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #208 on: January 09, 2019, 05:07:49 pm »

Omer: I admit that I am still unable to discern any coherent thesis in your remarks beyond the by-now inevitable "you're wrong, Andrew"

Ivo: Indeed. Conceptual Art arguably occurred as a result of/reaction to photography. The basic problem as seen in the 19th century was "photography is simply too easy to be Art" which was wrestled over extensively, but in the end Art changed into, eh, in rough terms what we know today: the concept is what matters, the execution is secondary.

So, yes, you get Art which is just a description of how one might do it (Keith Smith has a conceptual book made out of his own body, frozen, sliced, and bound. Obviously he has not yet made this book.) You get Art that is actually executed by hired hands rather than The Artist (quite a bit of that). And you get Photography. Which is much much easier than it was when the Victorians were thundering at one another in the relevant various journals.
Logged

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #209 on: January 09, 2019, 05:14:10 pm »

As a consequence of this, I guess, the use of Art has also changed.

Victorian art was decorative and occasionally kind of preachy, but mainly it was intended to be "sublime" which is rather too close to "pretty" for modern tastes. It's not quite the same, but it's alarmingly similar. It was all designed to be enjoyable, to be pleasurable to consume.

Purely conceptual art isn't all that enjoyable. Reading Smith's descriptions of his conceptual books is at best a moment of amusement. There simply isn't much there to take in, to enjoy, to be entertained by. What there is, though, is some mind expansion. Reading these descriptions, as a guy who makes books himself, I am enlarged in my understanding of what might reasonably be considered a book.

The use of Art has, in some ways, come full circle to the early religious art. Art has many functions now, including decoration, but Serious Art now, (like Serious Art in, say, the 12th century) is expected to enlarge us, to improve us, to expand our minds and our spirits.

Mozart does that for some people. da Vinci does it for some people. Keith Smith's weird conceptual books do it for a somewhat smaller audience of people.
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #210 on: January 09, 2019, 05:19:44 pm »

Omer: I admit that I am still unable to discern any coherent thesis in your remarks beyond the by-now inevitable "you're wrong, Andrew"

Ivo: Indeed. Conceptual Art arguably occurred as a result of/reaction to photography. The basic problem as seen in the 19th century was "photography is simply too easy to be Art" which was wrestled over extensively, but in the end Art changed into, eh, in rough terms what we know today: the concept is what matters, the execution is secondary.

So, yes, you get Art which is just a description of how one might do it (Keith Smith has a conceptual book made out of his own body, frozen, sliced, and bound. Obviously he has not yet made this book.) You get Art that is actually executed by hired hands rather than The Artist (quite a bit of that). And you get Photography. Which is much much easier than it was when the Victorians were thundering at one another in the relevant various journals.

Then why are we discussing about the good or bad of a image. It may be that the viewer doesnít understand the artists  cerebral effort ....

I really can follow yours point of view. And I donít have a reason to think you would judge art without the openness in trying to understand what the artist saw or want to bring over.

I hope more could do so. Keeping the curiosity to understand what the artist want to say or show. It is about humility.
Logged

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3069
    • Pictures
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #211 on: January 09, 2019, 05:40:40 pm »

Quote
You know what the difference is between Painting, Writing, Composing, and Photography?

With the latter, you will instantly know that your done.

Da Beat, early 2019
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 841
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #212 on: January 09, 2019, 05:47:32 pm »

You can print things which are not photographs, and conversely a photograph need not be printed to be a photograph.

Printing, therefore, is not photography, any more than stretching canvas is painting.


That is not the point.

Printing is the end product of photography.
As a painting by Goya is of his work.

A picture of a picture of a Goya in the Internet is just that. A pic of a pic.
A picture of a print or future print in the screen is just that.
It is not a negative, it is not the *.jpg, it is not a collection of zeros and ones in the file, it is not the contact copy.
The end product is the print, or the painting, or the statue, or the cake

That is my humble opinion  8)
Logged

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #213 on: January 09, 2019, 06:08:28 pm »

Then why are we discussing about the good or bad of a image. It may be that the viewer doesnít understand the artists  cerebral effort ....

As I've noted in the past, I don't entirely subscribe to the post-modernist experiment. I think there is good and bad, but also I do not think the artist's intent is necessarily the ultimate guide. Nor do I think it is irrelevant. When I put on my critic hat, I am doing something quite specific, which I will now outline!

A critic renders judgement, their own judgement. That is literally the job. This judgement, though, is tempered, it is not merely "I like it" or "I don't like it.'

The critic places themselves into the shoes of some hypothetical audience, and attempts to answer the question "what will that audience get out of this?" The audience could be, and altogether too often is, merely other critics. It might also be average citizens. The audience could be, and probably sometimes is, "Malians with a university education."

The judgement of what the audience might or might not get out might only be "will they like it?" or it might Be (ideally is) more nuanced, more complete.

Roger Ebert wrote movie reviews not for critics, nor for average rubes. He wrote reviews for more or less normal people who like movies, who are attentive to movies, who will approach a movie with an open heart and give the movie a chance. I try to do the same with photography. If you don't like photography, I'm not writing for you. If you're not willing to approach a group of pictures with an open mind and an open heart, I'm not writing for you either. If you only "like" photographs that grab you instantly with glib splashes of color or strong graphics, again, not for you.

I write for a relatively narrow audience of people who like photographs, who find photographs interesting, who have some slight familiarity with photographs (at least), and who are willing to take the time to look, to think, to see, to struggle, to try to understand. For those people, I offer my best guess at what they will get out of the pictures. I offer my guess as to whether they will like pictures or not, but also and more importantly, what art-like experience will they have. What directions will their minds likely grow, what new insights might they seek out in the work, what enlarging experience they might find in it.

For those people, I offer this on Krawesky's picture as my guess:

You'll like them. They are glib, graphical, pleasing.
You will, most likely, find nothing enlarging, nothing illuminating.


Logged

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3069
    • Pictures
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #214 on: January 09, 2019, 06:22:29 pm »


For those people, I offer this on Krawesky's picture as my guess:

You'll like them. They are glib, graphical, pleasing.
You will, most likely, find nothing enlarging, nothing illuminating.

I find that somewhat intriguing for the following reasons:
1. What does it mean then if one does find several images enlarging?
2. Shouldn't good images be "glib, graphical, pleasing" first and foremost in order to engage the audience so they will actually take the time and find whatever is enlarging?

Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #215 on: January 09, 2019, 06:28:16 pm »

I find that somewhat intriguing for the following reasons:
1. What does it mean then if one does find several images enlarging?

There are a number of possibilities.

a. my guess could be wrong, and in fact most of the people I imagine I represent will find enlargement
b. you are an outlier, and while most of the aforementioned will find no enlargement you are one of the rare people that does
c. you are not one of the people I imagine I represent

there may be more, but those three possibilities at least are in play.

2. Shouldn't good images be "glib, graphical, pleasing" first and foremost in order to engage the audience so they will actually take the time and find whatever is enlarging?

No. I do not care about people who require glibness before they're willing or able to examine work seriously. There are other critics you might want to read, but I am not one you should.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 06:33:49 pm by amolitor »
Logged

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #216 on: January 09, 2019, 06:42:19 pm »

That is not the point.

Printing is the end product of photography.
As a painting by Goya is of his work.

Yeah, I figured that would be the response.

Doesn't change the fact that printing something doesn't make it a photograph, and it doesn't change the fact that pretty much everyone else thinks that those JPEG files on their phones count as "photographs."

If you want to stick to your guns and say "photography absolutely includes printing" you're welcome to do that. It's not exactly a mainstream usage of the word, though.
Logged

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3069
    • Pictures
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #217 on: January 09, 2019, 07:05:13 pm »

There are a number of possibilities.

a. my guess could be wrong, and in fact most of the people I imagine I represent will find enlargement
b. you are an outlier, and while most of the aforementioned will find no enlargement you are one of the rare people that does
c. you are not one of the people I imagine I represent

there may be more, but those three possibilities at least are in play.

Or perhaps I haven't seen enough images yet so I will find enlargement more easily than someone who has seen more images.

No. I do not care about people who require glibness before they're willing or able to examine work seriously. There are other critics you might want to read, but I am not one you should.

Well okay, not glibness of course, but a pleasing composition for example helps to first engage the viewer superficially. If you don't manage to attract the viewer to your image, how can one expect them to take the time to look for enlargement. I realise it is an effort requested of the viewer, but something has got to trigger the effort. I'm fairly sure that trigger isn't you or I telling them to. (Although I maintain that this is exactly why society needs curators: to prefilter the images worth viewing for the lazy rest of us.)
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #218 on: January 10, 2019, 01:17:09 am »

As I've noted in the past, I don't entirely subscribe to the post-modernist experiment. I think there is good and bad, but also I do not think the artist's intent is necessarily the ultimate guide. Nor do I think it is irrelevant. When I put on my critic hat, I am doing something quite specific, which I will now outline!

A critic renders judgement, their own judgement. That is literally the job. This judgement, though, is tempered, it is not merely "I like it" or "I don't like it.'

The critic places themselves into the shoes of some hypothetical audience, and attempts to answer the question "what will that audience get out of this?" The audience could be, and altogether too often is, merely other critics. It might also be average citizens. The audience could be, and probably sometimes is, "Malians with a university education."

The judgement of what the audience might or might not get out might only be "will they like it?" or it might Be (ideally is) more nuanced, more complete.

Roger Ebert wrote movie reviews not for critics, nor for average rubes. He wrote reviews for more or less normal people who like movies, who are attentive to movies, who will approach a movie with an open heart and give the movie a chance. I try to do the same with photography. If you don't like photography, I'm not writing for you. If you're not willing to approach a group of pictures with an open mind and an open heart, I'm not writing for you either. If you only "like" photographs that grab you instantly with glib splashes of color or strong graphics, again, not for you.

I write for a relatively narrow audience of people who like photographs, who find photographs interesting, who have some slight familiarity with photographs (at least), and who are willing to take the time to look, to think, to see, to struggle, to try to understand. For those people, I offer my best guess at what they will get out of the pictures. I offer my guess as to whether they will like pictures or not, but also and more importantly, what art-like experience will they have. What directions will their minds likely grow, what new insights might they seek out in the work, what enlarging experience they might find in it.

For those people, I offer this on Krawesky's picture as my guess:

You'll like them. They are glib, graphical, pleasing.
You will, most likely, find nothing enlarging, nothing illuminating.

I can live with that, Amolitor. Thanks for this comprehensive explanation. I hope a lot of Lulaneers will take it at heart.
Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1094
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #219 on: January 10, 2019, 03:59:02 am »

As I've noted in the past, I don't entirely subscribe to the post-modernist experiment. I think there is good and bad, but also I do not think the artist's intent is necessarily the ultimate guide. Nor do I think it is irrelevant. When I put on my critic hat, I am doing something quite specific, which I will now outline!

A critic renders judgement, their own judgement. That is literally the job. This judgement, though, is tempered, it is not merely "I like it" or "I don't like it.'

The critic places themselves into the shoes of some hypothetical audience, and attempts to answer the question "what will that audience get out of this?" The audience could be, and altogether too often is, merely other critics. It might also be average citizens. The audience could be, and probably sometimes is, "Malians with a university education."

The judgement of what the audience might or might not get out might only be "will they like it?" or it might Be (ideally is) more nuanced, more complete.

Roger Ebert wrote movie reviews not for critics, nor for average rubes. He wrote reviews for more or less normal people who like movies, who are attentive to movies, who will approach a movie with an open heart and give the movie a chance. I try to do the same with photography. If you don't like photography, I'm not writing for you. If you're not willing to approach a group of pictures with an open mind and an open heart, I'm not writing for you either. If you only "like" photographs that grab you instantly with glib splashes of color or strong graphics, again, not for you.

I write for a relatively narrow audience of people who like photographs, who find photographs interesting, who have some slight familiarity with photographs (at least), and who are willing to take the time to look, to think, to see, to struggle, to try to understand. For those people, I offer my best guess at what they will get out of the pictures. I offer my guess as to whether they will like pictures or not, but also and more importantly, what art-like experience will they have. What directions will their minds likely grow, what new insights might they seek out in the work, what enlarging experience they might find in it.

For those people, I offer this on Krawesky's picture as my guess:

You'll like them. They are glib, graphical, pleasing.
You will, most likely, find nothing enlarging, nothing illuminating.

I agree with much that you write, and you write very lucidly so I hope I have a fairly clear understanding of the points you make and the negative criticism of this photographers work.

By now I you are most likely anticipating a "but". You could see this as that "but" although I prefer to see its as a small point of departure, or even a slightly different perspective that can lead to a different reading.
I assume any art work in any medium is intended to communicate something, even if not clearly realised by the artist. That intention supposes the existence of an audience and of course no audience is homogenous. In fairness to your criticism of this work I believe the intended audience of these images is located in Europe and North America. Of course I could be wrong since the work ended up on a photographic site that is increasingly viewed by a wider audience. I of course do not think that this first world audience is homogeneous but there will inevitably be more shared experiences among this group than if we extended outside of it.

I am from Africa, I have travelled extensively in Africa and to a lesser degree in Asia. I have lived for brief periods in the Middle East, Europe and North America. I live in a Third World country, or perhaps what has become known as an arsehole country. I actually like it despite certain challenges and things that annoy me.

When I lived in North America I was discomforted by the sterility and groomed appearance of the environment. Where I live is chaos, litter everywhere, abandoned and hijacked buildings, no one follows road rules, people range from being dressed in filthy rags to designer clothes, frequently all mixed up together. I have no desire to enter into a debate about how there are poor areas all over the world. The environment in Europe and North America is fundamentally different to where I live, trust me on this.

When I saw the photographs by Adam Krawesky they immediately resonated with me. To me has has perfectly described the manicured, freshly painted pristine city environment I experienced when I lived in North America. The well dressed people with space all around them, no one selling roasted chicken feet on the side of the road, no piles of rotting vegetables, no hordes of people. Also no threatening environment, no danger but also no life, no fizz. A sense of alienation, a surreal disconnectedness. Cold and unwelcoming, lonely. The man stepping onto the road in a clearly demarcated crossing area even with no one around. Never see that where I live. Here people run across 5 lane freeways dodging cars doing 120KM/H, frequently resulting in spectacular accidents.

My point to all this is I got a lot from this article. It has made me look at where I live and how wild it can actually get. Made me wonder how I could portray all that. Most importantly Adam has pointed out to me what I felt living in North America. When I saw the images my reaction was, "Yes, like that".
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 14   Go Up